Frontiers in oncology · 2023
Integrated analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone or bortezomib + thalidomide + dexamethasone induction in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rosiñol Laura, Hebraud Benjamin, Oriol Albert, Colin Anne-Laurène, Ríos Tamayo Rafael, Hulin Cyrille, Blanchard María Jesús, Caillot Denis, Sureda Anna, Hernández Miguel Teodoro, Arnulf Bertrand, Mateos Maria-Victoria, Macro Margaret, San-Miguel Jesús, Belhadj Karim, Lahuerta Juan José, Garelik M Brigid, Bladé Joan, Moreau Philippe
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Providing the most efficacious frontline treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is critical for patient outcomes. No direct comparisons have been made between bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (VRD) and bortezomib + thalidomide + dexamethasone (VTD) induction regimens in transplant-eligible NDMM.
METHODS: An integrated analysis was performed using patient data from four trials meeting prespecified eligibility criteria: two using VRD (PETHEMA GEM2012 and IFM 2009) and two using VTD (PETHEMA GEM2005 and IFM 2013-04).
RESULTS: The primary endpoint was met, with VRD demonstrating a noninferior rate of at least very good partial response (≥ VGPR) after induction vs VTD. GEM comparison demonstrated improvement in the ≥ VGPR rate after induction for VRD vs VTD (66.3% vs 51.2%; P = .00281) that increased after transplant (74.4% vs 53.5%). Undetectable minimal residual disease rates post induction (46.7% vs 34.9%) and post transplant (62.4% vs 47.3%) support the benefit of VRD vs VTD. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study and/or treatment discontinuation were less frequent with VRD (3%, GEM2012; 6%, IFM 2009) vs VTD (11%, IFM 2013-04).
CONCLUSION: These results supported the benefit of VRD over VTD for induction in transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. The trials included are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01916252, NCT01191060, NCT00461747, and NCT01971658).
METHODS: An integrated analysis was performed using patient data from four trials meeting prespecified eligibility criteria: two using VRD (PETHEMA GEM2012 and IFM 2009) and two using VTD (PETHEMA GEM2005 and IFM 2013-04).
RESULTS: The primary endpoint was met, with VRD demonstrating a noninferior rate of at least very good partial response (≥ VGPR) after induction vs VTD. GEM comparison demonstrated improvement in the ≥ VGPR rate after induction for VRD vs VTD (66.3% vs 51.2%; P = .00281) that increased after transplant (74.4% vs 53.5%). Undetectable minimal residual disease rates post induction (46.7% vs 34.9%) and post transplant (62.4% vs 47.3%) support the benefit of VRD vs VTD. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study and/or treatment discontinuation were less frequent with VRD (3%, GEM2012; 6%, IFM 2009) vs VTD (11%, IFM 2013-04).
CONCLUSION: These results supported the benefit of VRD over VTD for induction in transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. The trials included are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01916252, NCT01191060, NCT00461747, and NCT01971658).